Political Roundtable - Part VI

[Induveca]

So basically eliminate the unnecessary redundancy of the criminal and civil court systems by eliminating the criminal court system entirely. We already have the solution in front of us, we just have to open our eyes and see it.

I'm sorry, I read every word. It's utter idiocy and ignorance. The woman has zero real exposure to the outside world.

Take away the fright of physical/mental punishment from human beings and it results in massive crime. She quotes South Africa of all places, one of the most crime infested countries in the world.

I know of all the 3rd world countries in which I've lived, crime isn't just a choice. Sometimes it's just wired into someone's brain.

Also after doing some more reading on the author, I have absolutely no respect for the author. She comes across as a racist, unrealistic utopian hack to me.

[Nivek]

To me, the issue isn't about whether people are "bad" or not. For the most part, I think not. But, there are some people who do/have done things that are bad enough, and/or they're "off" enough that they cannot be permitted back in society. I'm thinking about people like Dahmer and Bundy or serial rapists. If someone's a serial shoplifter, for example, they can be rehabilitated or not, but the consequences of "not" aren't egregious. But, try to rehab Dahmer, let him out and...if he's not rehabbed, the consequences are dire.

What do you do with a Madoff?

[Zonkerbl]

To me, the issue isn't about whether people are "bad" or not. For the most part, I think not. But, there are some people who do/have done things that are bad enough, and/or they're "off" enough that they cannot be permitted back in society. I'm thinking about people like Dahmer and Bundy or serial rapists. If someone's a serial shoplifter, for example, they can be rehabilitated or not, but the consequences of "not" aren't egregious. But, try to rehab Dahmer, let him out and...if he's not rehabbed, the consequences are dire.

What do you do with a Madoff?

Well those guys are crazy. That's a different category of people, although we lump them all together with the other "criminals."

First we tried locking crazy people up in insane asylums, which was a terrible idea. Then we decided to let them all out and just arrest the ones that go too crazy. That's an even worse idea. We can do better.

[dobrojim]

or a Dimond

[Zonkerbl]

So basically eliminate the unnecessary redundancy of the criminal and civil court systems by eliminating the criminal court system entirely. We already have the solution in front of us, we just have to open our eyes and see it.

I'm sorry, I read every word. It's utter idiocy and ignorance. The woman has zero real exposure to the outside world.

Take away the fright of physical/mental punishment from human beings and it results in massive crime. She quotes South Africa of all places, one of the most crime infested countries in the world.

I know of all the 3rd world countries in which I've lived, crime isn't just a choice. Sometimes it's just wired into someone's brain.

Also after doing some more reading on the author, I have absolutely no respect for the author. She comes across as a racist, unrealistic utopian hack to me.

EXCUSE ME? "Zero real exposure to the outside world"????? Do you even know who Angela Davis is? Maybe you should read up on her before you talk about her.

I think you'll be ashamed for what you just said.

Purely invalid ad hominem argument on your part anyway Indu. Her real world experience has no bearing on her arguments and she addresses in great detail what you said and you ignored it. So shame on you for that as well.

[nate33]

So basically eliminate the unnecessary redundancy of the criminal and civil court systems by eliminating the criminal court system entirely. We already have the solution in front of us, we just have to open our eyes and see it.

Her entire argument is rubbish. She ducks the question completely. The anecdote about the South Africa scenario isn't a solution. What? Is she going to simply hope that all the murderers and rapists will simply volunteer to seek out the wronged party and ask to make amends?

Again: What do we do with murderers, rapists, and thieves? I laugh at the notion that there can be retribution rather than pennance. What's the retribution for murdering my child, particularly if the murderer has no money and no assets? The only remaining compensation available would be the murderer's labor. Sounds like slavery all over again.

This is pure Marxist drivel. She whining about the way things are when her solutions would be a nightmarish alternatives. Imagine a society where the criminally inclined face no repercussions for murder, rape and theft.

Her argument went over your head, Nate.

Your argument is premised on the existence of bad people. If there are bad people in the world - murders, rapists, thieves - then they must be punished.

There are no bad people, Nate. There are dumbasses who make mistakes or blow their top or get in a fight or whatever. Bad guys are for hollywood.

And I entirely reject your premise that the purpose of justice is to punish people. Because then you introduce the racist element - white people are forgiven, thugs have to be punished. Our justice system has to be blind to our petty prejudices.

Her argument didn't go over my head. I know exactly what she is saying, and it's absurd. You can't just wish away the presence of bad people. They exist, and there are a lot of them. The best way to minimize their impact is to remove them from society. This gets them off the streets, and more importantly, it's a deterrent for would-be bad people to control their urges.

This doesn't mean that there aren't problems with our justice system. I agree that we are putting way too many non-violent drug offenders behind bars, and that disproportionately hurts blacks.

[Severn Hoos]

“The depravity of man is at once the most empirically verifiable reality but at the same time the most intellectually resisted fact.”

― Malcolm Muggeridge


If one starts with the proposition that people are all/generally good by nature, he will be continually disappointed by the exceptions, which prove to be not so isolated as he might have wished. If one starts with the proposition that all men are as bad as they could possibly be, he will be likewise surprised to find the exceptions that demonstrate an element of love and caring from one to another.

But, if one starts with the proposition that all men are fallen/fallible, and primarily concerned with maximizing their own well-being, then all else falls into place. The rapist is looking to maximize his sexual fulfillment at the expense of all else. And the man who could have the same inclination, but has a greater fear of imprisonment, loss of status, etc. may resist the impulse - not necessarily out of a love for humanity or the individual potential victim, but as the result of a calculation to maximize his own well-being. (30 years in prison outweighs 5 minutes of...)

The beauty of our national system lies in the Checks and Balances, as any young schoolboy knows (or used to know). And the Checks & Balances system is simply an acknowledgement of the nature of Man, settling into stability as the competing forces provide an equal and opposite pull in various directions.

It is not a "push" (that is to say, people pushing together to an imagined common goal), but a "pull", with people pulling toward their own happiness (hence the use of the term in the Declaration). Think of the support we use to help a young tree grow up straight. Do we lean boards up against it? No, we have stakes with lines pulling on it in various directions with equal force.

So the key is to set those competing forces against each other. I might think it would be fun or beneficial to go and rob the convenience store down the street, but I'm not going to risk my professional career to do it. A 16 year old kid, on the other hand, may not have the experience for foresight to make the same calculation. (I know that will be taken as a racial or socio-economic comment, but it's not. Think of the rich kids who do stupid stuff because they think they can get away with anything. Change their calculus of decisionmaking, and watch the behavior change.)

Set high penalties for fraud, absolutely. The broker will then be more inclined to act scrupulously, not because he's any better intrinsically, but because his decision calculus has changed. Unfortunately, the same works in reverse - lower the penalties and you have also modified the calculus. Now, people think the odds they "get away with it", or end up with a "slap on the wrist" have increased, lowering the negative consequences and steering them toward the bad behavior.

I could go on all day, and am probably providing plenty of fodder here. But I will make 2 main points in closing.

1. This dynamic should be employed only for what is truly criminal activity. I could see someone (maybe in NYC?) picking up this line of thinking and applying it to 32-ounce sodas. On a small scale, the dynamic is indeed the same - make the pain (taxes, etc.) high enough and people will move away from the undesired activity. But in that case, the tradeoff is not worth the loss of liberty. The same factor for drunk driving, theft, and murder - then the penalties should be employed to change that calculus for every citizen.

2. This is not ultimately about punishment, but in the end, that is what is necessary (if you choose to label it as such). Adam Smith said "mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent." As individuals, we are called to show mercy in all things. But, as a government, showing that mercy is not only cruel to the victim and his family, but to the future victims of criminals who felt emboldened to carry out their activity because they saw the lenience of the law in the previous case.


And a final coda: It is so hard to express on a message board the depth and nuance of very real issues that are not as simple as a soundbite would lead us to believe. That's why I haven't posted much lately, and why I am nervous posting this one, but will throw it out there and let the chips fall where they may...

[nate33]

2. This is not ultimately about punishment, but in the end, that is what is necessary (if you choose to label it as such). Adam Smith said "mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent." As individuals, we are called to show mercy in all things. But, as a government, showing that mercy is not only cruel to the victim and his family, but to the future victims of criminals who felt emboldened to carry out their activity because they saw the lenience of the law in the previous case.

This is a brilliant and succinct synopsis. With this in mind, you can clearly see that Angela Davis' treatise is unworkable. Unworkable and very dangerous.

[pineappleheadindc]

OT: I really can't say too much in public. But I note that the amount of willful ignorance or deliberate misinformation being exhibited by a number of high profile media and political figures associated with the Open Internet issue is maddening.

[popper]

“The depravity of man is at once the most empirically verifiable reality but at the same time the most intellectually resisted fact.”

― Malcolm Muggeridge


If one starts with the proposition that people are all/generally good by nature, he will be continually disappointed by the exceptions, which prove to be not so isolated as he might have wished. If one starts with the proposition that all men are as bad as they could possibly be, he will be likewise surprised to find the exceptions that demonstrate an element of love and caring from one to another.

But, if one starts with the proposition that all men are fallen/fallible, and primarily concerned with maximizing their own well-being, then all else falls into place. The rapist is looking to maximize his sexual fulfillment at the expense of all else. And the man who could have the same inclination, but has a greater fear of imprisonment, loss of status, etc. may resist the impulse - not necessarily out of a love for humanity or the individual potential victim, but as the result of a calculation to maximize his own well-being. (30 years in prison outweighs 5 minutes of...)

The beauty of our national system lies in the Checks and Balances, as any young schoolboy knows (or used to know). And the Checks & Balances system is simply an acknowledgement of the nature of Man, settling into stability as the competing forces provide an equal and opposite pull in various directions.

It is not a "push" (that is to say, people pushing together to an imagined common goal), but a "pull", with people pulling toward their own happiness (hence the use of the term in the Declaration). Think of the support we use to help a young tree grow up straight. Do we lean boards up against it? No, we have stakes with lines pulling on it in various directions with equal force.

So the key is to set those competing forces against each other. I might think it would be fun or beneficial to go and rob the convenience store down the street, but I'm not going to risk my professional career to do it. A 16 year old kid, on the other hand, may not have the experience for foresight to make the same calculation. (I know that will be taken as a racial or socio-economic comment, but it's not. Think of the rich kids who do stupid stuff because they think they can get away with anything. Change their calculus of decisionmaking, and watch the behavior change.)

Set high penalties for fraud, absolutely. The broker will then be more inclined to act scrupulously, not because he's any better intrinsically, but because his decision calculus has changed. Unfortunately, the same works in reverse - lower the penalties and you have also modified the calculus. Now, people think the odds they "get away with it", or end up with a "slap on the wrist" have increased, lowering the negative consequences and steering them toward the bad behavior.

I could go on all day, and am probably providing plenty of fodder here. But I will make 2 main points in closing.

1. This dynamic should be employed only for what is truly criminal activity. I could see someone (maybe in NYC?) picking up this line of thinking and applying it to 32-ounce sodas. On a small scale, the dynamic is indeed the same - make the pain (taxes, etc.) high enough and people will move away from the undesired activity. But in that case, the tradeoff is not worth the loss of liberty. The same factor for drunk driving, theft, and murder - then the penalties should be employed to change that calculus for every citizen.

2. This is not ultimately about punishment, but in the end, that is what is necessary (if you choose to label it as such). Adam Smith said "mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent." As individuals, we are called to show mercy in all things. But, as a government, showing that mercy is not only cruel to the victim and his family, but to the future victims of criminals who felt emboldened to carry out their activity because they saw the lenience of the law in the previous case.


And a final coda: It is so hard to express on a message board the depth and nuance of very real issues that are not as simple as a soundbite would lead us to believe. That's why I haven't posted much lately, and why I am nervous posting this one, but will throw it out there and let the chips fall where they may...

Bravo Severn Hoos,

I invested several hundred manhours on the subject about 15 years ago and agree to a large extent with your post. To summarize, there seem to be at least 3 types of crimes. Crimes of passion (almost impossible to preempt), crimes committed by the insane (again very difficult to preempt if we continue to allow insane people to operate freely in society) and crimes of choice (which are easiest to preempt but Americans don't seem to have the stomach for the remedy). I could easily prescribe a solution to reduce crimes of choice by 50-75 percent if Americans weren't so squeamish about the types of punishments and policing required to deter such behavior. It's very sad that Americans have to continually be terrorized by criminals and it's because they've bought in to a false narrative on what drives those who commit crimes of choice.

[Induveca]

So basically eliminate the unnecessary redundancy of the criminal and civil court systems by eliminating the criminal court system entirely. We already have the solution in front of us, we just have to open our eyes and see it.

I'm sorry, I read every word. It's utter idiocy and ignorance. The woman has zero real exposure to the outside world.

Take away the fright of physical/mental punishment from human beings and it results in massive crime. She quotes South Africa of all places, one of the most crime infested countries in the world.

I know of all the 3rd world countries in which I've lived, crime isn't just a choice. Sometimes it's just wired into someone's brain.

Also after doing some more reading on the author, I have absolutely no respect for the author. She comes across as a racist, unrealistic utopian hack to me.

EXCUSE ME? "Zero real exposure to the outside world"????? Do you even know who Angela Davis is? Maybe you should read up on her before you talk about her.

I think you'll be ashamed for what you just said.

Purely invalid ad hominem argument on your part anyway Indu. Her real world experience has no bearing on her arguments and she addresses in great detail what you said and you ignored it. So shame on you for that as well.

I read plenty on her. She has run a US only small college speaking circuit for a few decades. She's an avid vegan, communist, acquitted of murdering 4 people when she attacked a courtroom with a death squad.

I read plenty on her, she has extreme views on a LOT of things. Obviously not a foolish woman, but one hard to take seriously when she attacked U.S. racism and applauded the Soviet Union and called the victims of ethnic cleansing of the USSR "fascists" during the 70s-80s. A Russian Nobel laureate called her an ignorant propaganda puppet for the USSR/East Germany. She fought so hard for "anti racism/oppression" but backed the USSR and China?

Fascinating life, interesting brain. But she seems like an extremist for hire. USSR? East Germany? PETA? Feminist rallies? College speaking circuit? Occupy movements across US. Interesting way to make a life, but she's a hypocrite in my view.

Also Monte, brilliant post.

[dckingsfan]

OT: I really can't say too much in public. But I note that the amount of willful ignorance or deliberate misinformation being exhibited by a number of high profile media and political figures associated with the Open Internet issue is maddening.

Yep, agreed... law of unintended consequences. Anytime you try to regulate an industry, you just help monetize the incumbent(s). Obama has it wrong on this one...

[Nivek]

It's interesting to read this stuff about how we fix crime when the evidence is showing a steady decline in crimes over the past two decades. Some could argue that the "get tough on crime" stuff has worked. Other research seems to be showing a link between environmental lead and crime rates -- apparently crime rates have been dropping worldwide location-by-location about 20 years after switching to unleaded gas.

Leaving Angela Davis aside for a moment, the point about the American penal system is that it almost certainly has gone too far. America has 707 prisoners per 100,000 population, which is the second highest rate in the world (behind Seychelles).

Russia imprisons 470 per 100,000. Iran's number is at 284.

There's an ocean of difference between the US number and that of other developed nations. It really doesn't make a damn bit of sense.

And, that's before we even get to the racial component of America's penal system, which shows a clear bias against people with dark skin.

[dckingsfan]

Hey Nivek,

I think there are four components to this - deterrence, what to prosecute (and the penalties), lead/environmental, and the broken window strategy . I am going to take on the "what to prosecute", Servern nailed the deterrence aspect (IMO).

I think that Prohibition was a great lesson in the '20s that we didn't learn from. We banned alcohol and it didn't get us much.

We had our war on drugs similar to Prohibition. But in this case it was a different class of people that we were criminalizing, it was a very effective "get reelected" campaign strategy and their was an industry that was benefitting.

Which brings up - what do you want to prosecute. What do you want to deter? In the case of alcohol - individuals wanted the freedom to have a beer. They maintained that their freedom to drink beer didn't imping on the rights of others (drunk driving wouldn't be the same). Wouldn't that be the same with marijuana? Do you really want to incarcerate a vast number of individuals for that "crime"?

And then what should the penalty be? Should we lock up everyone that gets a speeding ticket? Probably not. But we did that for possession of marijuana and those in the proximity of the arrest (dope in the same car for example). A fine (like with a speeding ticket) would have been a better use of resources.

So, our system has been broken because we applied the wrong deterrence for the "crime".

Crime is falling because of broken window, lead reduction and deterrence on violent crime - IMO naturally.

[Zonkerbl]

Romney says Obama has lost what we won in Iraq. What is it that we won again?

http://aattp.org/absolutely-nothing-a-v ... -iraq-war/

[Zonkerbl]

Obama reached a deal with China over carbon emissions!

Ok! I'm a little less peeved with Obama now. Nice to see somebody in the government capable of governing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html

[dckingsfan]

Romney says Obama has lost what we won in Iraq. What is it that we won again?

http://aattp.org/absolutely-nothing-a-v ... -iraq-war/

There will never be a "good" answer on why Bush went into Iraq. Probably the same with leaving...

[Zonkerbl]

Her entire argument is rubbish. She ducks the question completely. The anecdote about the South Africa scenario isn't a solution. What? Is she going to simply hope that all the murderers and rapists will simply volunteer to seek out the wronged party and ask to make amends?

Again: What do we do with murderers, rapists, and thieves? I laugh at the notion that there can be retribution rather than pennance. What's the retribution for murdering my child, particularly if the murderer has no money and no assets? The only remaining compensation available would be the murderer's labor. Sounds like slavery all over again.

This is pure Marxist drivel. She whining about the way things are when her solutions would be a nightmarish alternatives. Imagine a society where the criminally inclined face no repercussions for murder, rape and theft.

Her argument went over your head, Nate.

Your argument is premised on the existence of bad people. If there are bad people in the world - murders, rapists, thieves - then they must be punished.

There are no bad people, Nate. There are dumbasses who make mistakes or blow their top or get in a fight or whatever. Bad guys are for hollywood.

And I entirely reject your premise that the purpose of justice is to punish people. Because then you introduce the racist element - white people are forgiven, thugs have to be punished. Our justice system has to be blind to our petty prejudices.

Her argument didn't go over my head. I know exactly what she is saying, and it's absurd. You can't just wish away the presence of bad people. They exist, and there are a lot of them. The best way to minimize their impact is to remove them from society. This gets them off the streets, and more importantly, it's a deterrent for would-be bad people to control their urges.

This doesn't mean that there aren't problems with our justice system. I agree that we are putting way too many non-violent drug offenders behind bars, and that disproportionately hurts blacks.

But Nate, surely you don't believe that every single one of the two million prisoners in this country are bad people?

I think that's absurd and intellectual laziness on your part. Do you or do you not admit that only a small number of people in jail are "bad people"? Do you or do you not admit that most of the "bad" people are mentally ill and thus "punishing" them with incarceration is a complete waste of public funds? Do you deny that a number of institutions that we have control over, like the education system, are responsible for preparing inner city kids to spend most of their lives in jail? That if we approached our education system, our health care system, the way we care for the mentally ill differently, the need for incarceration would decline significantly, reducing government budgets and allowing the current government at the state and federal level to be reduced substantially? More to the point, if confronted with a choice between more public healthcare or more prisons, which choice are we obligated to make as ethical human beings?

You already admit that a huge number of people in the system now are there for crimes that are only on the books because of institutionalized racism. There's absolutely no need for any drugs to be illegal. We could wage the war on drugs just as easily with legal drugs, except we wouldn't have an excuse to throw so many minorities in jail. So all I'm asking you to do is continue that line of thinking.

How much prison space do we really need? Have the courage to ask that question and not just blow it off with some reactionary knee-jerk jingoistic **** about how people are evil.

[Zonkerbl]

By the way, we DON'T keep the truly evil people off the streets. Sex offenders are allowed to walk around free once their sentences are up. Think about that - pedophiles have to register as sex offenders, but they are basically allowed back out into society. So the argument that prisons are necessary to keep bad people off the streets is utter BS. If that's what we were using prisons for then such people would never see the light of day again.

No, prison is used for punishment and punishment only. As such it is completely obsolete.

[dckingsfan]

Obama reached a deal with China over carbon emissions!

Ok! I'm a little less peeved with Obama now. Nice to see somebody in the government capable of governing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html

As with anything with the Chinese, I want to know about enforcement... I really don't trust them - and I think that is with good reason. It does make me hopeful that the problems due to pollution are motivating And it could very well jumpstart worldwide negotiations.

The outline has a couple of worrying texts...

1) China said it “intends” to start cutting carbon emissions in 2030
2) China was already on course to produce a fifth of its energy from renewable sources by 2020
3) Analysts carbon emissions were already expected to peak in 2030

On the other hand, we (the US) agrees to:

1) cut in carbon emissions of between 26% and 28% on 2005 levels by 2020 an acceleration of its existing goal to reduce emissions 17%

And our goals would be enforceable if congress passes the measure.

It kind of feels a little bit like:

Obama: We will cut emission even if it will cost more for our companies to manufacture and transport goods.
Xi: We will increase carbon output to cut energy costs for the next 15 years.
Obama: Lets reduce barriers to trade for high-tech industry and manufactured goods. So, when our energy costs go up and yours go down, US businesses can move to China without fear of import restrictions back to the US
Xi: you drive a hard bargain...But you got a Deal!